The U.S. Stands to Lose Much More Than a War With Iran

[LeGenD]

@Mr Iran Eye

Now you will understand that trolling is not acceptable. Enjoy your ban for a while.

You laugh on my posts on habitual basis.

When a Mod issue the instruction to stop or tell you stop, you better stop.

You are not allowed to abuse reactions.

@HGV

You are issued strikes for trolling in this thread and making excuse for another troll.

I have not checked IP yet but I will if this nonsense continues.

Other members keep in mind. No comments will be tolerated on Moderating decisions in this thread and otherwise. Stick to the topic on hand and contribute like a sensible person. If you cannot, stay out.

My intent is to establish facts, not partake in propaganda of any nation.
Discuss and convince me if you can.
I accept valid points and positions but I will not accept BS.

@SalarHaqq is mature in his approach to discussions and can offer thought provoking perspectives. Learn from this member.

 

[mohsen]

Well, nothing new. even Americans' own simulated wargame in 2002 predicted their humiliating defeat:

Millennium Challenge 2002 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And that is 2002 when US army was much more resourceful and Iranian army was much weaker in every aspect.

If they come through water, their ships will be sunk, if they plan land invasion, they will face multiple layers of resistance and supply issues.

 

[Mehdipersian]

Following is a fairly instructive assessment of Iranian defenses:

Iran’s Conventional Military Capabilities - New Lines Institute

A challenging security environment besets Iran. With relatively few partners and even fewer allies, Iran faces a plethora of regional and even global adversaries, from historical geopolitical competitors like Turkey to outright hostile enemies such as Israel and the United States.

newlinesinstitute.org

Their information about Iran air defence is outdate. I think they speak about iran air defence systems about 20 years ago.

They Underestimate Iran. I think it's their agenda.

 

[Falcon29]

These kind of articles are meaningless as US is no longer going to fight wars in the Middle East and does not seek regime change in Iran.

 

[Dalit]

US will HYPE hostile states beyond measure in their disclosures. This is a tactic to feed American Military Industrial Complex (MIC) so it can continue to develop more capable weapons and make American war machine better than before as well as sell arms to numerous countries.

Take a look:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/01/20/computer-simulations-attempting-to-predict-the-price-of-victory/431e5daa-377b-4541-8f69-cf8bfd75e2a2/

Assessing the 1990-1991 Gulf War Forecasts

A number of forecasts of potential U.S. casualties in a war to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait appeared in the media in the autumn of 1990. The question of the human costs became a political issue f…

www.dupuyinstitute.org

As the saying goes:

Appear Weak When You Are Strong: What Sun Tzu Meant

In The Art of War, Sun Tzu says, "Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak." Learn how to master the art of deception.

www.shortform.com

Iranian military capability is reasonable for a regional power but it has significant capability gaps and weaknesses when compared to American military capability on a technical level, but hype sells. The art of deception continues to work.

As if the American the military industrial complex ever needed tactics to develop new weapons. The Americans are warmongers and they develop weaponry with or without any hyping up.

 

[Hack-Hook]

As far as I remember reading, they changed the rules of the simulation to less realistic ones and that's when they managed to prevail.

Actually they changed it to a more realistic one for USA navy. In the first simulation they tried to be nice and spare civilian fishing boat or anything acting similar to them.
In the second simulation they were everyday US Navy and destroyed every fishing and civilian boat in Persian gulf and sea of oman

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Except he is, even if he won’t admit it. In the event of an all-out war with Iran, the USS Abraham Lincoln has about an 80% chance of survival while operating in the Arabian Sea provided its neither launching nor recovering aircraft at the time.

Who are these f*cking moron writers who think this is the way aircraft carriers go into battle???

Please will somebody remind this guy how close any US Aircraft Carriers got to the Iraq coast during either of the gulf wars?

Let's ask ChatGPT...

During wartime US carriers are not going to be in the Strait of Hormuz where they would be susceptible to attack.

Even during WW2 a US carrier had to quickly turn back when it was discovered 400 miles from the Japanese coast for fear of being annihilated by a wave of Japanese bombers.

Why would anybody think US carriers would get even closer to that in this day and age????

Anybody talking like the author is just an idiot. A carrier is not going to be anywhere near the Strait of Hormuz during wartime. It is way way way way way way too close to Iran's shoreline.

 

[Mehdipersian]

Who are these f*cking moron writers who think this is the way aircraft carriers go into battle???

Please will somebody remind this guy how close any US Aircraft Carriers got to the Iraq coast during either of the gulf wars?

Let's ask ChatGPT...
View attachment 954189

During wartime US carriers are not going to be in the Strait of Hormuz where they would be susceptible to attack.

Even during WW2 a US carrier had to quickly turn back when it was discovered 400 miles from the Japanese coast for fear of being annihilated by a wave of Japanese bombers.

Why would anybody think US carriers would get even closer to that in this day and age????

View attachment 954190


Anybody talking like the author is just an idiot. A carrier is not going to be anywhere near the Strait of Hormuz during wartime. It is way way way way way way too close to Iran's shoreline.

Only 650 km?! (400 mile)
Your aircrafts carrier will sink easily.

We have many ballistic and cruise missiles in 1000 km range.(anti ship)
Even our suicide drones have more range than this.(2500 km) You will see swarm of drones (in air, sea and under sea) attack your vessels

 

[SalarHaqq]

Who are these f*cking moron writers who think this is the way aircraft carriers go into battle???

Please will somebody remind this guy how close any US Aircraft Carriers got to the Iraq coast during either of the gulf wars?

Let's ask ChatGPT...
View attachment 954189

During wartime US carriers are not going to be in the Strait of Hormuz where they would be susceptible to attack.

Even during WW2 a US carrier had to quickly turn back when it was discovered 400 miles from the Japanese coast for fear of being annihilated by a wave of Japanese bombers.

Why would anybody think US carriers would get even closer to that in this day and age????

View attachment 954190


Anybody talking like the author is just an idiot. A carrier is not going to be anywhere near the Strait of Hormuz during wartime. It is way way way way way way too close to Iran's shoreline.

Do you know where the Arabian Sea is located? Allow me break it to you:

It's covering an area as far out as >2300 km from Iran's coastline and over 2500 km from the Strait of Hormoz, in other terms far more than the 400 miles you cite.

Kindly make sure to be acquainted with the geography of the area before insulting authors who are.

---

Actually they changed it to a more realistic one for USA navy. In the first simulation they tried to be nice and spare civilian fishing boat or anything acting similar to them.
In the second simulation they were everyday US Navy and destroyed every fishing and civilian boat in Persian gulf and sea of oman

True that.

---

Washington has been trying every method to provoke so-called regime change in Iran, short of all out war which is not considered affordable enough an option.

Latest examples:

* Continued massive support for the exiled opposition to the Islamic Republic (monarchists, secular republicans, leftists, separatists etc).
* Continued funding and promotion of oppositionist media across the internet and printed press, in what is the most extensive propaganda and psy-ops campaign against a government ever witnessed in history.
* Continued blackening of the Islamic Republic in mainstream media.
* Continued support for entities hostile to Iran in the region and beyond, including the zionist regime and its attacks and acts of sabotage against the Iran-led Axis of Resistance.
* Continued attempts to generate instability, mass protests, strikes and riots in Iran.
* Continued stringent sanctions against Iran (more severe than the numerically superior ones slapped on Russia as of late, e.g. some Russian banks can still freely work with the west while no Iranian bank can).
* Continued presence of USA military bases all around Iran's borders.

Only hours ago the USA regime's foreign minister Blinken released a filmed statement about last year's violent riots which martyred tens of Iranian law enforcement personnel, openly siding with the defunct riot movement and admitting Washington's support for it. The message is part of an elaborate attempt to revive those same riots on the anniversary of Mahsa Amini's demise, the initial pretext for the disturbances.

These are textbook hallmarks of a "regime change" policy. That Washington has consistently failed in its endeavor does not mean it has not tried every realistic means to this end. Just that Iran has been strong enough to withstand the pressure. Like it or not, this is basic ground reality.

When there is a will, there is a way even in the face of the zio-American empire's bullying, something other governments in the Moslem world and the global south can take inspiration from.

 

[ReasonableStar75]

US cannot do anything to Iran,

This is the map that says all, and the future will be worse, this is because it s important for Iran to increase the radius of their missiles... and their power:

US cannot do anything, they are late, and also must worry about China ambitions and Taiwan. US is doomed by circunstances. The best US can do is to rest in America and forget other countries, this is the best for all the world.

 

[LegionnairE]

Good luck overcoming from such a distance the colossal target list (many times that of so-called "Desert Storm") full blown war against Iran would entail, knowing that greater distance equals more restrictive mission parameters. Targets that are far more hardened, far better defended by air defences than anything the USA regime faced in a very long time, whilst Iranian retaliatory power is also unlike anything the Americans would be having to cope with since WW2.

During Desert Storm, they were hitting Iraqi targets with F117s, today there are hundreds of F35s and even more stealthy carrier based tanker drones, the distance is no problem at all. F35 has a ridiculously long range.

There's been an incredible amount of progress in the last 20 years, today's US military looks nothing like the one that marched into Iraq. Even the Bradley and M4 carbine are going away. A lot of the things I've been criticizing have been replaced or in the process of being replaced. We're looking at an almost complete transformation.

Whereas In Iran, broadly speaking only significant advances we're seeing are ballistic missiles and SAMs. Please don't get mad at me for saying but Americans aren't afraid of Kowsar

 

[SalarHaqq]

During Desert Storm, they were hitting Iraqi targets with F117s, today there are hundreds of F35s and even more stealthy carrier based tanker drones, the distance is no problem at all. F35 has a ridiculously long range.

More carried fuel = reduced payload capacity for weapons. Such a distance definitive has a restrictive impact on mission parameters.

There's been an incredible amount of progress in the last 20 years, today's US military looks nothing like the one that marched into Iraq. Even the Bradley and M4 carbine are going away. A lot of the things I've been criticizing have been replaced or in the process of being replaced. We're looking at an almost complete transformation.

Whereas In Iran, broadly speaking only significant advances we're seeing are ballistic missiles and SAMs. Please don't get mad at me for saying but Americans aren't afraid of Kowsar

The transformation has been more significant on Iran's side.

The USA has not launched military aggression on Iran = they don't think they can do it successfully at acceptable political, economic and possibly military cost.

 

[ReasonableStar75]

The transformation has been more significant on Iran's side.

The USA has not launched military aggression on Iran = they don't think they can do it successfully at acceptable political, economic and possibly military cost.

They know it, but they are flooded by blindness... Iran has all the edge and avantages on the region, and the time will make even worst for US...

It s only an Iranian decision to let US to patrol that sea. The time will come, missiles are numerous and each time more powerfull. Iran makes long range missiles like bullets, i don t know how US will stop that... but i don t believe in hollywood miracles.

Just think in fatteh missile, in minutes to cover that area, you ll see, US is in trouble indeed, just add to this equation, mines cruisse missiles, supersonic sunburns and alike, supercavitation torpedoes, submarines, advances air defence systems, long range sucide drones... and next generation iranian missiles combient with satelite and anti satelite counteraction.

Iran is supersonic and hypersonic, US is doomed, and will be faced with very tough decision in future.

 

[SalarHaqq]

They know it, but they are flooded by blindness...

That, and because pride stands in the way of acknowledging that an alternate path is possible for nations of the global south, a path independent of the zio-American empire and in spite of the latter's wrath.

 

[LegionnairE]

More carried fuel = smaller payload capacity for weapons. Such a distance has a definitive impact on mission parameters.



The transformation has been more significant on Iran's side.

The USA has not launched military aggression on Iran = they don't think they can do it successfully at acceptable political, economic and possibly military cost.

As I said time and time again The way they killed Suleimani was a blatant provocation but Iran didn't take the bait. Your leaders are smarter than the forum users here.

After Quwait fiasco, Saddam was thinking that "wow they didn't march to Baghdad an kill me it means they can't or they don't want to" but they were just biding their time, waiting for a good crisis. Just because they haven't attacked you yet to deduce from that that Iran is so STRONK that they can't. Is one of the most foolish fallacies that I see you guys engage with.

As for Iran's "transformation" not in the air force, not in the navy, not even much in the Army. It's just Missile forces so far. You have the same rifles, same tanks, first plane you received in DECADES is the 2 Yak-130ies that arrived last week. And 4 Kowsars. I almost forgot the Kowsars lol